Utah public lands policies could drive Outdoor Retailer show out of Salt Lake City

Comments

Socialize the loss ( in this case our outdoor legacy) and privitize the profits.
Ken Ivory should be ashamed.

#1 SLC Sports FanSalt Lake City, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 5:36 p.m.

The biggest issue as I see beyond Utah's concervative attitude towards
federal land use policies is this even clearly needs to be in a bigger city such
as Denver, Chicago, Orange County or even Las Vegas that can better accomodate
it. Despite all the growth, Salt Lake City is still a very small market
compared to the other 4 interested in hosting this event. We will NEVER have the
hotel space or convention center spae needed to accomodate vendors, retailers
and visitors to this event that they need.

RRBSLC, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 3:22 p.m.

Utes Fan

In 2008 our Supreme court ruled we had a right (easement) to
the streams for fishing, tubing etc. But the private land owners fought it, and
won (including Governor Herberts brother in law) The governor signed the bill.
The out door people complained, so he authorized our state wildlife to pay off
the land owners, before the Supreme court could rule on it again.

Remember the Provo river parkway, it was to go from Utah lake to the base of
Deer Creek. The state even gave Governor Herberts sister an old bridge from
Henifer to give the trail access through her families property (July 26 1988
DN). The trail ends just below their property at Vivian park. There will be no
trail to Deer Creek, but his family gets access to their property with a bridge.

A good example of giving control of our land to the state. The good
parts will end up in private ownership. To bad they gave the worst land to the
American Indians. The citizens now get the west desert bombing range, if we
clean it up first.

OHBUColumbus, OH

Aug. 2, 2012 2:33 p.m.

This is the second time the OR show has almost left Utah due to poor land
policies. Last time it was dear Governor Leavitt that was ruining everything,
but Olene Walker saved it when he got called up by W.

I think
it's amazing how people are so willing to casually cast off the most
important event (economically) in Utah. In an economy like this, that
twice-a-year show has been what's kept many businesses downtown afloat.
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs? Yeah right, more like agenda, agenda, agenda.

one old manOgden, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 1:57 p.m.

BearOne -- you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. If it were not for those "extreme tree
huggers" and the BLM, NPS, USFS and others like them, there would be no
outdoors worth visiting in Utah.

Utes FanSalt Lake City, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 1:02 p.m.

@sorrytowakeyou

Nothing in that 2008 Supreme Court ruling stated that
the public has the right to take private property away. That is a common
misconception that uninformed people use to strike it down. The rivers belong to
the public, and there has ALWAYS been an easement for the public to use it -
that is how the Utah Supreme Court ruled. And might I add, Utah's Supreme
Court is arguably the most conservative in the nation. Private property does not
take away that easement, much like a sidewalk. No I don't believe that the
Supreme Court is above other branches of govt. Do you think the governor and
legislature should be above the laws as defined? I don't. Conservatives
don't - but liberals often do. You might want to evaluate who is being
"liberal" here.

You said:"The US Supreme Court
ruled about 6 months ago, that the State of Montana also got it wrong on public
access."

That ruling applies to the riverbeds immediately under
the PPL dams in question and whether the state can or cannot charge rent for
their use. Montana's public access to rivers is still very much intact, as
it should be.

mcdugallLayton, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 12:45 p.m.

@Bearone "Remember that unless we rein in the federal government and the
extreme tree-huggers, there will be no outdoors for any of us to enjoy."

How does one even come to that conclusion? The EPA/Department of the
Interior/BLM try to protect the lands from reckless human
destruction/exploitation. If your reference is to the unwillingness of the
Federal Government to allow ATVs vehicles on sensitive land, use the two feet
that you were given and walk. Riding an ATV through the outdoors is not how God
intended man to see the great beauty of the outdoors.

New to UtahPAYSON, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 12:06 p.m.

It is good to fight for federal lands within the state. A great concern is the
power of contruction interests and homebuilders and destruction of needed
farmland,orchards and open space. Public lands need to be better maintained than
what the government has done. The real estate market is still soft and shuffling
homes from Sandy and Bountiful to Harriman and Daybreak does not solve the
oversupply. Quality of life, including less crime and ability to get fresh
fruits and vegetables in the long run is better than wall to wall houses.

justamacguyManti, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 11:59 a.m.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. If the Outdoor Retailers want to
go let them. Utah makes billions of dollars off it rural trails and lands. The
Outdoor show only brings in a fraction of that. Federal Management of our public
lands is pathetic as can be seen by the fires we have had on it do to senseless
fuel build up. Unmanaged forests are dying across the state. And what wildlife
projects the feds to initiate are done in a manner that does not benefit
wildlife, but instead destroys habitat. An example is our deer herds. The fed
range land continues to be turned into grass ranges which deer can not use in
the winter. The BLM won't even add browse species to reseeding's after
the fires unless someone else pays for it. And people say we are better off with
fed management? You better do your research people.

RRBSLC, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 9:57 a.m.

The kids are playing video games, because unlike their grandparents that bought
big lots and built small houses, their parents built large houses on small lots.
Our canyons and outdoors is going private. Just ask the governor and his
blocking citizens from fishing on private streams. (he did authorize the
government to buy rights to fishing on private land by the way, including his
brother in laws place in Provo canyon.)

Getting the land from the
feds would end open land in Utah, and make it private. Just look at their
actions in the past. We have a billion dollars of free outdoor space, and
business wants to sell it back to us.

Mark from MontanaAurora, CO

Aug. 2, 2012 9:55 a.m.

I do not like the Fed owning so much land in any of the western states. The
question is will I like the the State of Utah owning those lands instead? Or
how about Montana, Colorado, Wyoming or Idaho?

I can honestly say
that I trust the Feds more than the state governments. There is more scrutiny
on the Fed than on the states. I have seen so many tricks and shady deals that
allow friends of those in office to gain advantage over the normal citizens.
Even if transactions are completely above board, choice lands will be sold to
the highest bidders. In Montana I saw so many lands bought up by the Hollywood
elite, or music stars, or other wealthy out of staters, that I promise you it
will happen her.

Why is the state so desperate to gain these lands?
I believe it is so they can sell them off, and all of the average joes will
never set foot on the choice lands again. How about Arches, anybody want to buy
their favorite arch? Bidding for Rainbow Arc will start at $125 million.

sorrytowakeyouHeber City, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 9:51 a.m.

So Ute Fan, you're saying that the State Supreme Court should replace the
state legislature? What happened to separation of powers? You whiny libs are
always looking for ways to take private property. The US Supreme Court ruled
about 6 months ago, that the State of Montana also got it wrong on public
access. You're getting whipped both in the legislature and the court on
this issue. Get over it. If you want to access the state water, just stay in
your dingy.

And to those citing the management cost of federal
lands as something the state cannot bear.....are you serious? The BLM and the
Forest Service are 2 of the most pathetic "management" agencies in the
world. They hire 10 times the amount of employees needed and they rarely get
out to see what they are managing. We would actually utilize some of the
resources and cut the overhead dramatically. Yet another reason why the federal
government was never intended to own or manage land.

RN4momsBountiful, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 8:46 a.m.

I know money talks but this is one more way big business can run politics. If
we cave on something that is actually in Utah's best interest because of
threats like this, we are no better off than allowing the Feds to run over us.
We need to make decisions that are right regardless of the threats.

chalicemanSalt Lake City, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 7:51 a.m.

I think we would be better served to use taxpayer money to support schools,
teachers pay, infrastructure, existing state parks and enticing new businesses
to come to Utah rather than spending money we don't have on maintaining
lands which are being well managed by the BLM. As a Utah taxpayer, I don't
want my taxes to increase for the privilege of maintaining BLM property along
with its 12,000 roads. Under our current budget, how would we pay for this?
Increase taxes is the only answer. Isn't this the Red States agenda, no new
taxes?

NeilTClearfield, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 6:10 a.m.

Ute Fan. Good point. I was going to make it but you beat me to it. Herbert is
not fooling anybody. This is all about privitization and taking away public
access to all that makes Utah so great. I hope the OR stays. I will not be
voting for Herbert. He is nothing but a puppet of the right wing extremists
that have managed to take control of our legislature. One of the worst
governors Utah has ever had.

My2CentsTaylorsville, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 4:35 a.m.

My understanding of the convention heads it is not the public lands policy that
is the problem. The OR does not want Utah to have control of the public lands
and for a good reason, the developers and politicians will begin a land grab
equivalent to the opening up land under the Homesteading Act, except the state
doesn't want anyone else to homestead the land.

This
associations problem with Utah is it doesn't have the infrastructure to
host the convention any more. And Utah is not a an outdoor destination the
governor thinks it is. We became available because we were cheap with illegal
labor. Utah outdoor recreation which really not much at all. Hunting and camping
is diminishing thousands of acres a year by developers and oil companies.

I sure do hope the federal government maintains control of all BLM
property. The BLM land belongs to all of America, not to the governor or Utah.
If the BLM should happen to relinquish the land. we can only hope that it will
be under the rules of the federal "Homesteading Act" and give all
americans equal access to this land.

Wouldn't that frost the
governor's empire.

Utah_1Salt Lake City, UT

Aug. 2, 2012 2:27 a.m.

Under the US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17, and the 10th amendment,
the Federal Government can not exercise exclusive jurisdiction or own land in
Utah, unless it is for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and
other needful Buildings, and it was purchased by the Consent of the Utah
Legislature.

When Utah became a state, the Federal Government
committed to selling the unappropriated public lands, extinguishing the title,
and providing 5% of the proceeds of the sales to the State School Trust Fund.I believe it would be better to have the land transferred to Utah as opposed
to requiring the Federal Government sell the land to developers or other
countries like China. The Utah State Constitution is designed to protect the
Public Land based on Article XVIII, Section 1, Forests to be preserved, and
Article XX, Section 1, Land grants accepted on terms of trust.

If
the Federal Government sells or transfers any public land to Utah or others, 5%
of the proceeds of the sales should got to the School Trust Fund. There is a
gaping loophole in that process which we need to close.

Utes FanSalt Lake City, UT

Aug. 1, 2012 10:35 p.m.

We need to remember the 2008 unanimous Utah Supreme Court decision concerning
stream access: that Utah's rivers and streams belong to the public and are
accessible by the public.

Guess what? Gov. Herbert and Utah's
legislature overturned that UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decision by declaring that
the state controls who can or cannot access Utah's rivers and streams. The
bill that the governor signed into law was heavily lobbied by wealthy landowners
whose intentions were to buy up the rivers and lock out the public. The Utah
legislature and governor caved into the many wealth landowners by overturning
the Supreme Court decision.

Do you enjoy camping, hiking, etc.
in Utah's public forests? You might not be able to in the future if the
same trends happen as did with the stream access laws. I have EVERY reason to
believe that the legislature and the governor will do it again with the public
forests. They locked the public out from what the public owns - rivers and
streams, and there is no reason to think they won't do it with public
lands.

EmajorOgden, UT

Aug. 1, 2012 9:38 p.m.

"Meanwhile, once we get our state lands back and can start developing our
natural resources, the state will make 10x the $40 million that we lost from
your show"

Have any idea how much the federal government spends
to manage those lands? Well, the state will have to spend that now. Gonna eat
into profits. Want to know what locks up lands faster and harder than wilderness
study protection? Private sale and the leasing of public lands to private
entities.

Kings CourtAlpine, UT

Aug. 1, 2012 9:29 p.m.

Brave Sir Robin, you are disillusioned if you think Utah's message bill is
going to get the Federal Government to give up its land. Even if it did, it
would sell it to private interests, not turn it over to the state (this is how
they disposed of other federal land in the East). Yet disposing of the land by
selling it to private interests is very difficult given there are no water
rights attached to those land parcels since those rights have been already
claimed--making the arid land quite worthless. The reality is that Utah will
lose $40 million and gain nothing in return, and better yet to make up for the
shortfall, they will take the money from the school kids since education is not
valued in this state.

Brave Sir RobinSan Diego, CA

Aug. 1, 2012 9:16 p.m.

OK Outdoor Retailers...you win. Pack up and take your show - and your $40
million - to Anaheim (by the way, great choice - they really know how to
preserve the "outdoor recreation infrastructure" in Anaheim).
Meanwhile, once we get our state lands back and can start developing our natural
resources, the state will make 10x the $40 million that we lost from your show,
and us outdoor enthusiasts can still enjoy the 99.8% of public lands that
won't be affected. Sounds like a good deal to me and the rest of the
rational part of the population.

Just say no to the OR show, Herbert.

Conner Johnson

Aug. 1, 2012 7:50 p.m.

Good to see the OR taking a stand against 'The Great Herbert Land
Grab.' The ball is in your court governor, drop the lawsuit or lose the
OR... Take a stand Gary!

BearoneMonroe, UT

Aug. 1, 2012 7:36 p.m.

If they are in such a hurry to find another place for their convention--more
power to them. I think it has been great to have them in SLC twice a
year---however just because they come and spend lots of money here does NOT give
them the right to dictate our state's policies.

I do feel that
they will not find a better venue to hold their show than Utah because our state
has OUTDOORS!!

Remember that unless we rein in the federal government
and the extreme tree-huggers, there will be no outdoors for any of us to enjoy.

Kings CourtAlpine, UT

Aug. 1, 2012 6:48 p.m.

It is good to see private enterprise push back against the legislature's
radical agenda.